Delhi High Court
Food Inspector vs Mohan Lal Gupta on 19 May, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.05.2015
CRL.L.P.185/2015
FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner
Versus
MOHAN LAL GUPTA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Isha Khanna, APP
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned
order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.250/2006 whereby the respondent has been
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Mr. Gian Chand
purchased a sample of Dal Moong Dhuli from the respondent on 06.07.2006 at
about 06.00 p.m. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three
equal parts; each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened
and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The respondent's signature was
also obtained on the LHA slip and the wrapper of the sample bottles. One
counterpart of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst in intact condition and
two counter parts were deposited with the LHA. Upon analysis it was found that
the sample was adulterated as it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter
viz. tartrazine. The respondent was charged under Section 2(ia)(a) & (m) of
PFA Act punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act
and Rules to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. The solitary contention that was raised before the Trial Court was
whether the sample taken was representative or not. It was pointed out on behalf
of the respondent that there was vast variation between the report of PA and the
Director, CFL which establishes that the sample was not representative.
4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to
establish that the sample was representative. It was observed by the Trial Court
in this behalf as follows:-
"11. PA's Report Ex. PW1/G is the very basis of
accusation to the effect that the Dal in question was
found coloured with synthetic colouring matter -
Tartrazine, which was impermissible in respect of the
given food article. However, when the second
counterpart of the same sample was got analysed there
at Central Food Laboratory-Pune vide Report dated
03.02.2007, the colour in question could not be
detected therein. Here, the sample was adjudged
adulterated on the grounds of excessive damaged
grains (16.03% against the permissible limit of not
more than 5%); weevilled grains (18% against the limit
of 3%) and the excessive presence of Uric Acid
contents to the extent of 400mg/kg against the limit of
100 mg/kg. Here it is pertinent to mention that none of
these deficiencies i.e. excessive presence of damaged
& wevilled grains as well as Uric Acid; was there in
respect of the first counterpart of the same sample
analysed by the PA vide Report dated 27.07.206.
12. The first counterpart stood analysed as on 27.07.06
(or prior thereto) whereas, the Report in respect of the
second sample counterpart is dated 03.02.07. Thus, the
time gap between the two Reports is that of more than
6 months. It was quite possible that during the
intervening period insects/moulds might have
developed therein. However, it remains entirely
unexplained as to how and why the second counterpart
of the same sample was found and adjudged having
nothing sort of synthetic colour applied thereto. It
makes the prosecution's story doubtful. The accused
deserves to be given the benefit thereof."
5. In view of the decision of this court in Kanshi Nath vs. State, 2005 (2)
FAC 219, Delhi High Court, the arguments made on behalf of the State by the
learned APP that the trial court should have only considered the CFL report
and not the PA report holds no water as the perusal of the trial court judgment
shows substantial variance in the PA report and CFL report. The excessive
presence of damaged and wevilled grains as well as uric acid is delineated in
the report of Director CFL however the same is absent in the PA report.
6. Consequently, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner
herein has failed to prove that the sample was homogenized and representative
and resultantly acquitted the respondent.
7. I see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court
passed based on the discussion extracted hereinabove. Consequently, the
present petition seeking leave to appeal is without merit and the same is
dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 19, 2015
mk
